So does Al Gore have a finger in the Ichthyology~psychologists market; and now we'll have to pay thru the nose for Rockfish counselling... and make him double-big rich? I, for one, welcome a new way in which the Global Warming, global cooling, Climate Change, no wait, "Regional Climate Variation" people can come up with new ways to screw the US Taxpayer...

Do Chinese fish get a discount on their fees?

/tired of this shiat//Clinton II vs Bush III, it's on like Donkey Kong!

This is like the bird flu (Another thing we were told to be scared about which came to nothing). No bad effects for normal people, some farm animals don`t make quite as much weight as they could, only affects the profit margin for people who use intensive farming methods...

Oh and the ever so standard, it may as well not get printed, `might cause other negative effects` which is like the list of side effects on medicine. while technically the words are right, in reality you can just ignore it.

Swampmaster:So does Al Gore have a finger in the Ichthyology~psychologists market; and now we'll have to pay thru the nose for Rockfish counselling... and make him double-big rich? I, for one, welcome a new way in which the Global Warming, global cooling, Climate Change, no wait, "Regional Climate Variation" people can come up with new ways to screw the US Taxpayer...

Do Chinese fish get a discount on their fees?

/tired of this shiat//Clinton II vs Bush III, it's on like Donkey Kong!

Oh, shazbat. Have they changed it to `regional climate variation now`?

yea, you're the expert. not a group of people who have spent a life time studying something.

Yeah. Meanwhile the people who've spent a lifetime studying the climate can't even predict something 12 hours in advance. I live at the Jersey shore. What was supposed to be a "dusting" of snow, is now right around 4-5 inches worth. I don't care what side of the argument anyone is on. The fact remains that if so-called "meteorologists" can't accurately predict the weather within a 12 hour span of time ... What makes ANYBODY think they can predict it over a period of years? And don't give me that weather =/= climate crapola. What do you think makes up CLIMATE? Here's a hint. It's weather trends.

This is like the bird flu (Another thing we were told to be scared about which came to nothing). No bad effects for normal people, some farm animals don`t make quite as much weight as they could, only affects the profit margin for people who use intensive farming methods...

Oh and the ever so standard, it may as well not get printed, `might cause other negative effects` which is like the list of side effects on medicine. while technically the words are right, in reality you can just ignore it.

I couldn`t care less.

One of the nice things about scientific papers is that they explicitly tell you the research context and the reasons why the findings may be important. If I were you I would be careful about dismissing the importance of the findings of a study without, presumably, even glancing at it. Arguing from ignorance isn't a good practice.

Anyway, to help you along, this is a behavioral ecology/behavioral physiology paper. What it's looking at is altered neutrotransmitter function in rockfish and resulting behavioral changes. Increased CO2 in the water leads to more acidic blood which indirectly affects the function of GABAA receptors, leading to increased excitation of neural pathways which results in 'anxiety' or behaviorally increased tendency to seek shelter.

Now as to why this important, the potential behavioral changes from an increased tendency to seek shelter would tend to affect the energy balance of the fish itself as well as direct and indirect effects through the food web as decreased risk-taking would affect predator-prey relationships.

In addition, while the study looked at rockfish, the principles involved are applicable to other groups. GABA is the primary inhibitory neutrotransmitter in the CNS of vertebrates and some invertebrate phyla. What this means is that a similar mechanism might be at work with fish and other organisms as well.

What this represents is a sub-lethal effect, but yet another stressor that when added and/or interacting with others has acumulative effect on an already impacted marine environment. If you need an economic valuation in addition to a ecological or inherent one, this would affect fisheries.

Of course this sort of thing would seem to be made up if you don't bother to RTFA, or even better the paper it's talking about. You can make all sorts of claims if you argue from ignorance.

For comparison's sake, a creationist argument along the same lines:

CA100. Argument from incredulity

No, I didn't bother to read the paywalled paper. It's the kind of study that one might see at a Junior High Science Fair.

Without knowing what was in the study, I'll pose a few questions1) Was this a double blind study? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Double_blind1a) If not, why not?2) How many years in real life is expected to reach the level of acidity used in the study?2a) How long was the transition period between normal conditions and these new extreme conditions? Was this considered an appropriate amount of time to allow for the adjustment of the fish to the new environment?

I spent part of my misspent youth fishing along the Gulf in Florida, sometimes fishing right where the fresh water meets the salt water. Salt Water Fish that are unable to survive in fresh water will come there and brave the relatively harsh conditions just to get some tasty food. The difference in salinity would be severe enough (if those salt water fish were to be placed in a fresh water tank in a similar Jr. High Level experiment) as to certainly change their behavior. Most of the time salt water fish that are used to some fresh water will survive, but they definitely won't breed - you can't convert most of them IIRC.

But observing the behavior of wild fish in a tank with rapidly changing conditions?Yeah, I suspect these are results that were requested and supplied.

Of course this sort of thing would seem to be made up if you don't bother to RTFA, or even better the paper it's talking about. You can make all sorts of claims if you argue from ignorance.

For comparison's sake, a creationist argument along the same lines:

CA100. Argument from incredulity

No, I didn't bother to read the paywalled paper. It's the kind of study that one might see at a Junior High Science Fair.

Case in point. How the heck would you know if "it's the kind of study that one might see at a Junior High Science Fair", while admitting in just the previous sentence that you didn't bother to read it?

I'll leave the rest of the post aside for the moment to highlight this important point. Take a step back and think about your irrational response here. How can you even remotely rationally make that sort of judgement? Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you're saying? What does this say about how you approach scientific evidence, not to mention how you approaching this topic?

Damnhippyfreak:SVenus: Damnhippyfreak: SVenus: I love made up science!

Of course this sort of thing would seem to be made up if you don't bother to RTFA, or even better the paper it's talking about. You can make all sorts of claims if you argue from ignorance.

For comparison's sake, a creationist argument along the same lines:

CA100. Argument from incredulity

No, I didn't bother to read the paywalled paper. It's the kind of study that one might see at a Junior High Science Fair.

Case in point. How the heck would you know if "it's the kind of study that one might see at a Junior High Science Fair", while admitting in just the previous sentence that you didn't bother to read it?

I'll leave the rest of the post aside for the moment to highlight this important point. Take a step back and think about your irrational response here. How can you even remotely rationally make that sort of judgement? Do you not see the inherent contradiction in what you're saying? What does this say about how you approach scientific evidence, not to mention how you approaching this topic?

You see, he's a petroleum geologist, and he's far too smart to be taken in by those tricksy ichthyologists and their shenanigans. He knows that the waters ph isn't changing, and if it is, it still can't affect the behavior of fish, because geologists know these things. Sort of like how kings know the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow.

Damnhippyfreak:Take a step back and think about your irrational response here

behavioral psychology of fish in a tank of water

I'll rest my case right there.

Sounds like FINDING NEMO had a big impact on SOME people.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if you make the eyes of a fish sting, they will head for darker water.There. I just cut out the behavioral fish psychologist requirement for duplicating that study.Where's that grant money?

Again, I will contend someone decided on the requested results, and someone else provided the "research" required to meet those results. Made.Up.Science.

SVenus:Without knowing what was in the study, I'll pose a few questions1) Was this a double blind study? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Double_blind1a) If not, why not?2) How many years in real life is expected to reach the level of acidity used in the study?2a) How long was the transition period between normal conditions and these new extreme conditions? Was this considered an appropriate amount of time to allow for the adjustment of the fish to the new environment?

First off, this is a behavioral ecology/behavioral physiology paper. The paradigm isn't psychology, but instead animal behavior and simple physiological and behavioral responses to stimuli. More physiology, less psychology.

So to answer your questions:

1/1a : In terms of the researchers, probably not. Blind studies are very uncommon in the biological sciences. However, considering the observations were done through a computerized motion tracker, the potential for observer bias is minimized.

As for the participants, while your asking if the experiment was double blind is rigorous (if not curious), please rest assured thatfish do not need be kept unaware of the expected outcome of the experiment. As far as we know, fish do not have expectations in regards to experimental protocols, or at least, they have declined to voice said expectations so far. In case you continue to ask questions along these same lines, the fish were not required to sign off on an informed consent form, they were not compensated for their participation in the study, and their real names were not used in the publication.

2: 0. Conditions approaching experimental conditions (1125 ± 100 μatm) already exist for periods of time, but on average (according to them) about 200 years, but of course dependent on emission scenarios.2b:7 days. This was considered sufficient to acclimatize.

If you have further questions I can put the paper up for you somewhere. Just ask.

SVenus:Damnhippyfreak: Take a step back and think about your irrational response here

behavioral psychology of fish in a tank of water

I'll rest my case right there.

Sounds like FINDING NEMO had a big impact on SOME people.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if you make the eyes of a fish sting, they will head for darker water.There. I just cut out the behavioral fish psychologist requirement for duplicating that study.

Again, you're making up things from a position of ignorance. The behavioral ecology of fish is indeed a subject of study, even if you're not aware of it. The mechanism that the authors contend is responsible for the response to increased CO2 concentration (no, not "make the eyes of a fish sting") was explored in the second part of their experiment. For illustration:

Figure 3.Model of OA-induced changes in GABAA-receptor ionic gradients. Under normal conditions, the concentration of Cl− ions is slightly higher in the cerebrospinal fluid (extracellular) relative to the cytoplasm (intracellular), and the equilibrium potential for Cl− (ECl) is near the resting membrane potential. When GABAA receptors open, Cl− flows into the neuron and counters depolarization, keeping the membrane potential more negative, and reducing neuronal activity. OA induces hypercapnic acidosis in plasma, which fish counteract by excreting excess H+ and accumulating HCO3−. This leads to a decrease in plasma [Cl−] (to maintain charge balance), thus leading to an alteration in ECl. In this condition, opening of GABAA receptors results in net Cl− movement out of the neuron, causing membrane depolarization and increasing excitation of neural pathways. Gabazine is an allosteric antagonist of GABAA receptors that prevents the channel from opening, whereas muscimol is a selective GABAA agonist that binds to the same site as GABA and increases channel opening (independent of presynaptic GABA release). Muscimol has opposite effects in control and OA-exposed fish when the membrane potential is close to resting because ECl is altered.

Not only that, you are deviating into conspiracy theory nutball territory by fabricating from whole cloth the idea that "someone decided on the requested results, and someone else provided the "research" required to meet those results". What about the other research that this paper is corroborating? What evidence are you basing this on?Who is the "someone" you're referring to?

Leave this sort of irrational thinking to the creationists.Unless you are a creationist, in which case your non-reasoning is par for the course.

SVenus:Damnhippyfreak: Take a step back and think about your irrational response here

behavioral psychology of fish in a tank of water

I'll rest my case right there.

I'll address this separately, because of it's importance. You've admitted that you haven't read the paper. You have no knowledge as to the prior research on the topic, the protocols, nor even the broad disciplinary approach (as you've misidentified it). In short, you have no clue as to what the paper is about.

Even though you're well aware of your own ignorance, you still think you can conclusively and stridently make a pronouncement about the quality of the information in the paper.

Again, take a step back and look at what you're saying. How is this even remotely justifiable from a rational point of view that values evidence? What does this say about how you approach scientific information?